30th Amendment (Oireachtas Enquiries) Exit Poll

Het-Field

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think the only bit that could be claimed as applicable would be:



I suppose you could claim that where an inquiry decides to call someone in front of them with a view to making a finding of fact against them (rather than as a witness in respect of someone else), that what is involved is a "determination of his civil rights and obligations", and I wonder if the Oireachtas can really be considered "independent and impartial"?However, the case law for Article 6 establishes the meaning of "criminal charge":



If that last is right, then despite the absence of a punishment that the Oireachtas can apply, it would still be a criminal charge, with the rights that that implies, as long as the inquiry dealt with an act that would be classified as criminal. So if the Oireachtas were making a finding in respect of fraud, say, they need to have cognisance of Article 6, whereas if they were making a finding in respect of incompetence, they wouldn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In the light of the repetitive parroting of the line "Bankers and Builders" by all sides of the Oireachtas, particularly during the General Election Campaign in February, one might feel that no "Banker or Builder" would be capable of getting a fair hearing before an Oireachtas Committee. I think it is plausable that a number of current Oireachtas members have made prejudicial statements which would render them incapable of making a fair and objective assessment of liability in the creation of the current crisis.

carveone

Sorry for being a bit dim here but what would happen next then? Would we have had a crisis of some sort trying to do something contrary to the ECHR?

Or would it have been the case that every finding of fact which was a criminal finding, but contrary to Article 6, would have resulted in a undermining of the ability to conduct a further criminal trial?

Doing a bit of googling on this it's interesting to see that a case arose in Scotland where the ability of Scottish police officers to question suspects before they were allowed access to a lawyer was determined as contrary to the ECHR by the Supreme Court. So the ECHR has struck laws down...

I see the usual "if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear" lines were used by commentators...

Boulevardier

Prejudiciality does not apply in parliamentary enquiries.

Parliamentarians' opinions are bound to be well known in advance of public hearings. The system has never depended on having enquiries run only be politicians who have hitherto kept their mouths shut on the issue in question.

Some postings on this thread confirm my previous impression: there are many people who simply do not believe the Dail should ever be given powers of inquiry similar to those available to parliamentarians in the UK or US.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Boulevardier wrote: »

there are many people who simply do not believe the Dail should ever be given powers of inquiry similar to those available to parliamentarians in the UK or US.

Probably because we have one of the most backward systems of parliament in the Western world.

Het-Field

Boulevardier wrote: »

Prejudiciality does not apply in parliamentary enquiries..

That is not true. The "In Re Haughey rights" are part of the rights of fair procedures and natural justice. If a member of an investigative committee has articulated a prejudicial view on a matter which they are due to investigate, then they are compromised, and are incapable of bringing an objective view to the table. Remember what was said about McArthu by Haughey? Rights are not suspended by virtue of a change in fora.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Parliamentarians' opinions are bound to be well known in advance of public hearings. The system has never depended on having enquiries run only be politicians who have hitherto kept their mouths shut on the issue in question...

Prior to the referendum, there was never a chance that an individual's bad name could be sullied by a group of parlimentarians.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Some postings on this thread confirm my previous impression: there are many people who simply do not believe the Dail should ever be given powers of inquiry similar to those available to parliamentarians in the UK or US.

Look at the robust terms of reference for UK Parlimentary enquiries. I would also suggest you take a detailed look at the Murdoch enquiry before attempting to us it as an example.

Wildlife Actor

fly_agaric wrote: »

...I was hoping you or others who are more informed might enlighten me as to existence of any sections in the constitution or EU charter of human rights about fair trials/fair procedures?? Or would this amendment have automatically made them count for nothing when it comes to the special case of these inquiries?

I don't think our benefactors in the EU will be happy with us if we end up with politician "hanging judges" trampling over the rights of citizens in response to mobs baying for blood.

Interesting question, already touched upon by some other posters. My tuppenceworth:

1. The wording of the rejected amendment suggests that it trumps other due process rights in the constitution itself: " It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest..."As such, the Shatter mantra that the amendment has to be seen in the light of the other provisions in the constitution is bunk.

2. The ECHR would almost certainly provide some protections, superimposed as it were on the constitution, but it's awkward getting there: Norris for example took years and years and all you get at the end of the day is a declaration which mightn't be respected for some time. The Human Rights Act 2003 probably wouldn't work as a domestic solution either as you're pitting an Act against the Constitution and the 2003 Act is expressly stated to be "subject to the constitution." I don't think you could ever get an injunction on the basis of an impending ECHR challenge. So by the time you get to the European Court of Human Rights, you've been trampled to a pulp before the geniuses of the Oireachtas.

3. But most importantly, the constitution should not be patched up with a leaky plaster like this. One shouldn't have to justify this rubbish amendment by saying that the ECHR will fix the mess.

Didn't David Byrne, the Att General who put the DIRT inquiry together say in a letter recently that he was aware of the constitutional limitation and successfully worked with it?

Boulevardier

" I would also suggest you take a detailed look at the Murdoch enquiry before attempting to us it as an example. "

Could you expand on this please?

Het-Field

Boulevardier wrote: »

" I would also suggest you take a detailed look at the Murdoch enquiry before attempting to us it as an example. "

Could you expand on this please?

1.Rupert Murdoch was never compelled to appear before the committee. He came of his own accord. Under the proposed system, Murdoch would have been compelled before the Committee.

2.No findings were made by the committee which could adversely impact the reputation of any person.

3.When the committee determined that findings against individuals (such as Rebecca Brooks) may arise, Leveson LJ was drafted to oversee the matter, under strict terms of reference. This created a judicial nexus, and prevented the destruction of the Separation of Powers. Under the terms of the amendment, an Oireachtas Committee would never have to consider the issue of competence, nor would it have to seek the involvement of a Judge when making a finding adverse to somebody's reputation.

The situations are like chalk and cheese, and regardless of how often this was stated the proponants of the amendment kept referencing the Murdoch inquiry.

Good loser

Het-Field wrote: »

BS. The Oireachtas was purporting to bistow upon itself powers which were far beyond what they had prior to the Abbeylara Judgement. The proposed amendment reflected the powers which the Italian Parliment has, in which case there is no proper separation of powers.



We are not talking about the European Union here. We do not select our parlimentarians to perform a quasi-judicial role. We select them to propose and ratify sophisticated legislation which will be capable of dealing with as many eventualities as possible. If the State had been prudent, our "white collar crime" laws would be reflective of the most sophisticated models in the world. Instead of legislating, the State has sought to garner powers which will allow them make populist findings against individual bankers after the fact. I would also point out that not "all" have accepted the creation of any democratic defecit after Abbeylara.


BS to you in return. The Govt had obviously to go beyond the powers they had prior to Abbeylara. The measure proposed was fair and reasonable. I don't even think the reference to fair procedures was necessary.

The State has more functions to perform than passing legislation. Holding enquiries for instance. Having read the Esat/Iarnrod/Denis O Brien enquiry by the Dail I consider it to have been an outstanding piece of work; the Abbeylara judgement prevented it issuing a report. This destroyed the potential good that would have come from it.

People like you have too much respect and awe for the law. Their arrogance and overcharging has been scandalous for years and has diminished respect for them bigtime.

It was politicians, not the law, that got rid of slavery in the States. Roosevault pushed through the New Deal against the opposition of the Supreme Court as did Lyndon Johnson with civil rights.

Boulevardier

Het-field, you are obiviously much better read in this area than I am.

Do you believe a Dail committee should be able to compel people to attend? I cannot see why not.

Do you believe that a Dail committee should be able to make adverse findings of fact about individuals? Again, I cannot see why not.

if your answer to either question is no, then presumably your issue is with the whole idea behind the Abbeylara referendum, not just the amendment that was actually put.

Does that not imply that if another version of the amendment is put in which the balance of rights is not left to the oireachtas to decide, you might still vote no?

FreudianSlippers

Good loser wrote: »

BS. The Oireachtas was purporting to bistow upon itself powers which were far beyond what they had prior to the Abbeylara Judgement. The proposed amendment reflected the powers which the Italian Parliment has, in which case there is no proper separation of powers.



We are not talking about the European Union here. We do not select our parlimentarians to perform a quasi-judicial role. We select them to propose and ratify sophisticated legislation which will be capable of dealing with as many eventualities as possible. If the State had been prudent, our "white collar crime" laws would be reflective of the most sophisticated models in the world. Instead of legislating, the State has sought to garner powers which will allow them make populist findings against individual bankers after the fact. I would also point out that not "all" have accepted the creation of any democratic defecit after Abbeylara.


BS to you in return. The Govt had obviously to go beyond the powers they had prior to Abbeylara. The measure proposed was fair and reasonable. I don't even think the reference to fair procedures was necessary.

The State has more functions to perform than passing legislation. Holding enquiries for instance. Having read the Esat/Iarnrod/Denis O Brien enquiry by the Dail I consider it to have been an outstanding piece of work; the Abbeylara judgement prevented it issuing a report. This destroyed the potential good that would have come from it.

People like you have too much respect and awe for the law. Their arrogance and overcharging has been scandalous for years and has diminished respect for them bigtime.

It was politicians, not the law, that got rid of slavery in the States. Roosevault pushed through the New Deal against the opposition of the Supreme Court as did Lyndon Johnson with civil rights.

Post shows a clear misunderstanding of "the law", the judiciary, lawyers, capitalism and US Government. :facepalm:

oscarBravo

Boulevardier wrote: »

Do you believe that a Dail committee should be able to make adverse findings of fact about individuals? Again, I cannot see why not.

Do you believe that a Dáil committee should be able to determine that an individual is guilty of wrong-doing (all the way up to a finding of unlawfully causing the death of another person) while depriving that person of the right to legal representation and the right to cross-examine his accusers and witnesses against him?

Boulevardier

A Dail Committee should be able to establish the facts of what happened in the area of its investigation, even if such a finding is potentially adverse to the individual's reputation.

I think that there is bound to be established practice and precedent in the UK and US in this area, and I have no reason to believe that we would not follow something very similar here.

Thrill

Several referenda expected after year-long review

extract re the Oireachtas inquiries referendum...

The judicial pay referendum was comfortably passed, but the Oireachtas inquiries referendum was defeated.

The latter issue may be among the areas which the constitutional convention is asked to examine.

"At some point a decision will have to be made as to whether we revisit this issue on its own, or whether perhaps we consider it as part of the proposals in the constitutional convention that we intend to go ahead with," Tánaiste and Labour leader Eamon Gilmore told RTÉ over the weekend.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/several-referenda-expected-after-year-long-review-172480.html


.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you believe that a Dáil committee should be able to determine that an individual is guilty of wrong-doing (all the way up to a finding of unlawfully causing the death of another person) while depriving that person of the right to legal representation and the right to cross-examine his accusers and witnesses against him?

That's exactly what the proponents seem to be missing. It's all well and good when you're not in the crosshairs, but to sign away your rights on the hope that the government won't abuse their powers is simply madness.

FreudianSlippers

Boulevardier wrote: »

A Dail Committee should be able to establish the facts of what happened in the area of its investigation, even if such a finding is potentially adverse to the individual's reputation.

I think that there is bound to be established practice and precedent in the UK and US in this area, and I have no reason to believe that we would not follow something very similar here.

I absolutely agree, unfortunately the 30th Amendment Bill that we got to vote on last week went well above and beyond these types of powers.

It would appear that what may have started out as a good idea got messy because politicians are greedy and saw a chance to take advantage of a pissed off electorate and grab unprecedented powers in this country, the UK or USA.
Luckily for all of us, they (to borrow a phrase from G.W. Bush) "misunderestimated" the people of this country.

Bannasidhe

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I absolutely agree, unfortunately the 30th Amendment Bill that we got to vote on last week went well above and beyond these types of powers.

It would appear that what may have started out as a good idea got messy because politicians are greedy and saw a chance to take advantage of a pissed off electorate and grab unprecedented powers in this country, the UK or USA.
Luckily for all of us, they (to borrow a phrase from G.W. Bush) "misunderestimated" the people of this country.

Dammit - stop saying things I agree wholeheartedly with.

Scofflaw

Boulevardier wrote: »

A Dail Committee should be able to establish the facts of what happened in the area of its investigation, even if such a finding is potentially adverse to the individual's reputation.

I think that there is bound to be established practice and precedent in the UK and US in this area, and I have no reason to believe that we would not follow something very similar here.

Apart, of course, from the fact that the proposed amendment gave them certain powers not available in other comparable jurisdictions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Duke Leonal Felmet

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you believe that a Dáil committee should be able to determine that an individual is guilty of wrong-doing (all the way up to a finding of unlawfully causing the death of another person) while depriving that person of the right to legal representation and the right to cross-examine his accusers and witnesses against him?

That's exactly what the proponents seem to be missing. It's all well and good when you're not in the crosshairs, but to sign away your rights on the hope that the government won't abuse their powers is simply madness.

I sense a state of flat out denial from proponents. No matter how often you point out the above to them, they just carry on repeating the same lines, over and over.

Scofflaw

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I sense a state of flat out denial from proponents. No matter how often you point out the above to them, they just carry on repeating the same lines, over and over.

I'm hoping (somewhat against hope) that they're 'amateur' proponents rather than reflecting the likely thinking of the government.

hopefully,
Scofflaw

Het-Field

Boulevardier wrote: »

Het-field, you are obiviously much better read in this area than I am.?

Im not too sure about that

Boulevardier wrote: »

Do you believe a Dail committee should be able to compel people to attend? I cannot see why not..?

Compulsion is not a major issue for me.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Do you believe that a Dail committee should be able to make adverse findings of fact about individuals? Again, I cannot see why not..?

TBH I dont.

I see it as an abdication of responsibility on the part of the legislature. The Legislature is our law making body. It should be displaying ingenuity in its legislative functions, and it should be seeking to emulate the best legislative provisions in the world by considering what are the best legislative provisions in the world. That is not hard. It requires a simple search of the laws of other countries. The prejudicial enquiry method is simply an attempt to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Second, the Commission of Enquiry Act 2004 offers sufficent investigative measures and powers to conduct a solid enquiry, which will give rise to adverse findings against root causes of matters of public significance. The Murphy Report, the Nyberg Report, the Reigling and Watson Report, and the Honohan Report are good demonstrations of what can be achieved without resorting to the poor amendment offered by the Government.

Boulevardier wrote: »

if your answer to either question is no, then presumably your issue is with the whole idea behind the Abbeylara referendum, not just the amendment that was actually put.?

Yes, I do have a major problem with the declaration of our imperfect Separation of Powers as null and void. I believe that the Courts and the Legislature have an individual roles. Attempts to rebalance powers, lost to the executive, should not mean the Legislature pilfers the functions of the Judiciary. In Italy, the Legislature has the same rights and privileges as a Court of Law. That is scary considering the years of Governmental failure in the country, and the lack of credibility of many of its leaders. The UK has demonstrated its ability to investigate matters through Parlimentary Enquiry. However, it stops short at making findings, and it is Governed by strict terms of reference.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Does that not imply that if another version of the amendment is put in which the balance of rights is not left to the oireachtas to decide, you might still vote no?

I think it goes beyond implied. I would never rule out voting in favour of such a power. However, the simple deletion of Section 4 may not be enough for me. I have a genuine concern about Parliments making findings against individuals. The Callely case demonstrates what can happen if an individual if rounded upon by his party collegues and those who oppose him. I also believe that it would be hard to find an parlimentarian who has not published opinions on matters which may come before such committees, and could be seen as prejudiced.

Het-Field

Good loser wrote: »

BS to you in return. The Govt had obviously to go beyond the powers they had prior to Abbeylara. The measure proposed was fair and reasonable. I don't even think the reference to fair procedures was necessary..

No they did not have to go beyond the powers they had prior to Abbeylara. You dont even explain that assertion.

"Fair and Reasonable"??? The bulk of Constitutional experts, Legal Professionals, Civil Rights Groups, and The Referendum Commission didnt think so. 10 Independent TDs didnt think so. The ULA didnt think so. 10% of the Fianna Fail PP didnt think so. A number of members of the Governmental Parties who broke ranks didnt think so. I suggest you read Section 4 about "Fair procedures". The constitution does not need subjective and unascertainable terminology.

Good loser wrote: »

The State has more functions to perform than passing legislation. Holding enquiries for instance...

That my be true, however, under a true separation of powers, the State should not be entitled to make adverse findings against individuals which come before it. This was the attitude taken in relation to Murdoch and Brooks, which stimulated the drafting of Leveson LJ.

Good loser wrote: »

Having read the Esat/Iarnrod/Denis O Brien enquiry by the Dail I consider it to have been an outstanding piece of work; the Abbeylara judgement prevented it issuing a report. This destroyed the potential good that would have come from it....

The Committee of Enquiry Act 2004 would do just fine. Also, look at the Nyberg Report, and the Murphy Report.

Good loser wrote: »

People like you have too much respect and awe for the law. Their arrogance and overcharging has been scandalous for years and has diminished respect for them bigtime.....

This was the type of crap which the Yes Campaign started flinging when they discovered that they were in trouble. Debate the issues.

Good loser wrote: »

It was politicians, not the law, that got rid of slavery in the States. Roosevault pushed through the New Deal against the opposition of the Supreme Court as did Lyndon Johnson with civil rights.

What has that got to do with the Amendment?

Liam Byrne

Another no here.

The day the Dáil ejects - without payoff or pension - a low-life who has been claiming unwarranted expenses or has brought the Dáil into disrepute is the day that I'll vaguely consider the possibility that they might be capable of judging whether or not someone has done something wrong.

As it stands, an entire government inexplicably stood behind Bertie Ahern.

So no.

fly_agaric

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Article 6 of ECHR deals with criminal and civil rights:

Love nor Money wrote: »

Interesting question, already touched upon by some other posters. My tuppenceworth:

1. The wording of the rejected amendment suggests that it trumps other due process rights in the constitution itself: " It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest..."As such, the Shatter mantra that the amendment has to be seen in the light of the other provisions in the constitution is bunk.

2. The ECHR would almost certainly provide some protections, superimposed as it were on the constitution, but it's awkward getting there: Norris for example took years and years and all you get at the end of the day is a declaration which mightn't be respected for some time. The Human Rights Act 2003 probably wouldn't work as a domestic solution either as you're pitting an Act against the Constitution and the 2003 Act is expressly stated to be "subject to the constitution." I don't think you could ever get an injunction on the basis of an impending ECHR challenge. So by the time you get to the European Court of Human Rights, you've been trampled to a pulp before the geniuses of the Oireachtas.

3. But most importantly, the constitution should not be patched up with a leaky plaster like this. One shouldn't have to justify this rubbish amendment by saying that the ECHR will fix the mess.

Didn't David Byrne, the Att General who put the DIRT inquiry together say in a letter recently that he was aware of the constitutional limitation and successfully worked with it?

Thanks very much for that.

I have to say the arguments given by Scofflaw, yourself + others would sway me somewhat but would have a question...
As regards point 1 above surely the amendment would not have meant that the politicians themselves get to decide what is "fair" or that they pat themselves on the back and announce that they have had "due regard" to this standard called "fair" in how they operated? The standard of fairness would come, I would have thought from outside, (from constitution, EU laws, our courts, maybe even what other democracies have decided is a "fair" way to operate a political inquiry?). Does it not still leave room for a challenge if the political inquiry infringed a persons rights in how it operated?

I'm going to rant off topic a bit now...

In Ireland, no one ever seems to be held to account for any of the "fubar" incidents that occur, certainly no one of any importance. We need something to happen change this and I thought this might be a first step.

I don't see any evidence of a culture of taking responsibility for failure ala Japan or even the UK emerging among the great and the good in Ireland.
Despite some people's fear of the govt. pulling the lever again to try to get result they want, I have a feeling that's it...nothing new or better will be suggested for at least a decade or so!
After all, in the next few years this shower might have f-ups of their own (or perhaps sins of commission rather than omission!) that could be picked over by a future inquiry!

fly_agaric

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Another no here.

The day the Dáil ejects - without payoff or pension - a low-life who has been claiming unwarranted expenses or has brought the Dáil into disrepute is the day that I'll vaguely consider the possibility that they might be capable of judging whether or not someone has done something wrong.

Would outcome of that Callely thing not mean that a td's colleagues would not have power to do something crazy like that!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0115/1224287577372.html

They would be denying the rights of the poor td you'd suggest punishing in such a cruel and outrageous manner! How dare you suggest it!:mad:

Good loser

Het-Field wrote: »

No they did not have to go beyond the powers they had prior to Abbeylara. You dont even explain that assertion.

FG and Labour had it in their election manifestos. FF and SF supported the Amendment in the Dail. It was not even controversial. Mere commonsense.

"Fair and Reasonable"??? The bulk of Constitutional experts, Legal Professionals, Civil Rights Groups, and The Referendum Commission didnt think so. 10 Independent TDs didnt think so. The ULA didnt think so. 10% of the Fianna Fail PP didnt think so. A number of members of the Governmental Parties who broke ranks didnt think so. I suggest you read Section 4 about "Fair procedures". The constitution does not need subjective and unascertainable terminology.

Yes the law lobby and 15% of TDs.

The Committee of Enquiry Act 2004 would do just fine. Also, look at the Nyberg Report, and the Murphy Report.

Didn't Nyberg recommend that something be done about lawyers dogging his enquiries - he had never seen the like in Scandanavia?
You don't comment on the Esat/Iarnrod enquiry; that was oustanding work aborted by Abbeylara at the last minute. If only the same could have been done on Anglo.

Personally now, like you, I don't care if the matter is never re opened.

Let the voters wallow in their timid and fearfilled contrariness.

Ozymandius2011

Ivan on Newstalk yesterday morning with the usualo red-herring about giving the Oireachtas 'the same powers as every other parliament to hold inquiries'#. Entirely disingenuous. In the US for example, witnesses to Senate inquiries have recourse to the courts - something denied by the amendment rightly rejected by the Irish people. We cannot trust our politicians - including convicted former criminals/terrorists and former tax-evaders - to sit in judgement on the Irish people and drag their reputations through the mud for partisan political ends.

And as far as I can see, the consensus that the Abbeylara ruling was wrong is an elite consensus. Show me the evidence the Irish people diapproved of it. :rolleyes: Leave judging to the judges. If we want to avoid Tribunal-style legal-expenses than the private Commissions of Inquiry e.g. Ryan/Murphy, are the way to go. They are already provided for under existing statutes and are in no way undermined by the existing Constitution. No - this was not about justice. It was a cynical power-grab by an govt whose power and massive majority have gone to its head. It is in times like this that check on the executive's power come into their own as critical for the preservation of the rights of the humble citizen.

FreudianSlippers

Good loser wrote: »

Yes the law lobby and 15% of TDs.

For the millionth time: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE LAW LOBBY.


Take that garbage to conspiracy theories where it belongs.

Boulevardier

Het-field, as I thought, you and some others did not simply oppose the Abbeylara referendum because of the problem of the Dail having the power to decide the balance of public and individual good. You opposed it tout court and you would presumably also oppose a rewritten amendment which allows more clearly for judicial review. This is a much more fundamental kind of opposition than that voiced by most opponents in the media.

"We cannot trust our politicians - including convicted former criminals/terrorists and former tax-evaders - to sit in judgement on the Irish people and drag their reputations through the mud for partisan political ends." - I think that if that is what we think of our own parliament, then I'm not surprised there is such a sense of malaise in the country.

I am now inclined to think that even an amended amendment is never going to pass. We have missed the boat on this possibly for ever.

oscarBravo

Boulevardier wrote: »

"We cannot trust our politicians - including convicted former criminals/terrorists and former tax-evaders - to sit in judgement on the Irish people and drag their reputations through the mud for partisan political ends." - I think that if that is what we think of our own parliament, then I'm not surprised there is such a sense of malaise in the country.

If it comes a surprise to you that we hold a large number of our elected representatives in contempt, then you've been living in a bubble for a very long time.

RandomName2

Boulevardier wrote: »

I am now inclined to think that even an amended amendment is never going to pass. We have missed the boat on this possibly for ever.

With a bit of luck!

I'm not eager to see the Dail doubling up as a court, and politicians doubling up as police officers, judges and juries. Although it would save us some money....

Duke Leonal Felmet

Boulevardier wrote: »

Het-field, as I thought, you and some others did not simply oppose the Abbeylara referendum because of the problem of the Dail having the power to decide the balance of public and individual good. You opposed it tout court and you would presumably also oppose a rewritten amendment which allows more clearly for judicial review. This is a much more fundamental kind of opposition than that voiced by most opponents in the media.

"We cannot trust our politicians - including convicted former criminals/terrorists and former tax-evaders - to sit in judgement on the Irish people and drag their reputations through the mud for partisan political ends." - I think that if that is what we think of our own parliament, then I'm not surprised there is such a sense of malaise in the country.

I am now inclined to think that even an amended amendment is never going to pass. We have missed the boat on this possibly for ever.

Note how the subject carries on their chosen trajectory, seemingly oblivous to the discussion at hand. No matter what angle others choose to take in their attempt to provide reasonable explanations, the subject insists upon their version of reality, and dismisses all evidence to the contrary.

It's... creationist-esque...

Boulevardier

Eh????

Duke Leonal Felmet

Boulevardier wrote: »

Eh????

I couldn't have put it better myself.

:-)

Boulevardier

Excuse me Duke, but I was commenting on your abusive and insulting post.

"Note how the subject carries on their chosen trajectory, seemingly oblivous to the discussion at hand."

In what way am I doing this?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Boulevardier wrote: »

Excuse me Duke, but I was commenting on your abusive and insulting post.

"Note how the subject carries on their chosen trajectory, seemingly oblivous to the discussion at hand."

In what way am I doing this?

It wasn't abusive or insulting but a simple observation, you are free to report it, as always.

As for your last question, I truly believe it to be an impossibility to explain this to you, for the reasons given in my allegedly abusive and insulting post. If I honestly thought I had a chance of getting the point across to you, I would try. But you seem unwilling to listen to peoples points of view, and rather continue on about how the proposed inquiries were the same as in the US/UK, when they are not, and you have been provided with ample adequte explanation as to why this is the case ... and so on.

You won't listen and thus cannot be helped.

Not abusive. Not insulting. Just observation.

Scofflaw

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

It wasn't abusive or insulting but a simple observation, you are free to report it, as always.

As for your last question, I truly believe it to be an impossibility to explain this to you, for the reasons given in my allegedly abusive and insulting post. If I honestly thought I had a chance of getting the point across to you, I would try. But you seem unwilling to listen to peoples points of view, and rather continue on about how the proposed inquiries were the same as in the US/UK, when they are not, and you have been provided with ample adequte explanation as to why this is the case ... and so on.

You won't listen and thus cannot be helped.

Not abusive. Not insulting. Just observation.

To be fair, it seems that at this stage Boulevardier is making the point that the opposition of some people goes beyond sub-section 4. He has named Het-Field, and it's true that Het-Field has stated that the separation of powers should mean that the Oireachtas should not be able to make findings against individuals in front of it, because in doing so the Oireachtas usurps a judicial function.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Boulevardier

Thank you Scofflaw.

Perhaps, Duke, it was my points that were not getting through to you?

No worries though, I won't give you a hard time for that.

Wildlife Actor

fly_agaric wrote: »

As regards point 1 above surely the amendment would not have meant that the politicians themselves get to decide what is "fair" or that they pat themselves on the back and announce that they have had "due regard" to this standard called "fair" in how they operated? The standard of fairness would come, I would have thought from outside, (from constitution, EU laws, our courts, maybe even what other democracies have decided is a "fair" way to operate a political inquiry?). Does it not still leave room for a challenge if the political inquiry infringed a persons rights in how it operated?

I'm going to rant off topic a bit now...

In Ireland, no one ever seems to be held to account for any of the "fubar" incidents that occur, certainly no one of any importance. We need something to happen change this and I thought this might be a first step.

I don't see any evidence of a culture of taking responsibility for failure ala Japan or even the UK emerging among the great and the good in Ireland.
Despite some people's fear of the govt. pulling the lever again to try to get result they want, I have a feeling that's it...nothing new or better will be suggested for at least a decade or so!
After all, in the next few years this shower might have f-ups of their own (or perhaps sins of commission rather than omission!) that could be picked over by a future inquiry!

On the point 1 issue (i.e. the words in point 4 of the amendment about the oireachtas deciding what's fair and not), the difficulty and the reason I consider that it trumps other constitutional rights is the very wording. The "rights" spoken of are constitutional rights (e.g. due process, fair procedure, equal treatment etc). If it is for the oireachtas to determine the appropriate balance of rights vs public interest with due regard to principles of fair procedures, then all a court can do is make sure that the committee had "regard" to the principles. In essence, if the punter before the oireachtas committee makes his arguments and the committee listens to and records those arguments, they will have satisfied the "have regard" duty. Their determination of the "appropriate balance" can then only be upset if it "plainly and unambiguously flies in the face of plain reason and common sense" (which the courts interpret as meaning that so long as there is some evidence to support the decision - even if overwhelmingly outweighed by the contrary evidence - the decision will stand). Of course somebody can go to court. But where a discretion belongs to an administrative body, the courts are always very deferential in respect of decisions within their discretion.

As to what can be done, I agree that it's annoying but I think that where suspected criminal activity concerned, a properly funded fraud squad working in tandem with the Director of Corporate Enforcement are capable of achieving a lot. It was obvious after the beef tribunal that show trials are a waste of money. Instead of looking backwards,which we've all been doing since then, we should be legislating for the future: limited corporate liability is a privilege and is attended by responsibilities. There are existing powers of investigation that are not being fully used and the legislature can make these more effective. New borrowing/lending offences can be created. But in the case of Seanie's Moving Money, I can't imagine that there isn't an offence in there which the admitted facts don't prove.

As well as that, private law is being neglected. Obviously if the bad guys have no money, it's not worth suing them. But certainly for those with money, the company can sue a director for breach of his duties and in limited cases a a shareholder can sue through the company. Some of those asset transfers to wives can also be attacked.

The problem with current procedures is not so much that the structure or set up is wrong: more that people aren't bothering with it.

Also, and this is important, if journalists were given the time by their newspapers to actually investigate stories instead of churning crap off the wire and hounding public figures who don't stick to politically correct non-positions, they might achieve a lot more in this area.

Finally (and to end the rant), we all need to look in the mirror on the celtic tiger. The right answer is never black and white.

Het-Field

Good loser wrote: »

Het-Field wrote: »

FG and Labour had it in their election manifestos. FF and SF supported the Amendment in the Dail. It was not even controversial. Mere commonsense./QUOTE]

Sorry, the fact that elected politicans are happy to garner more power for themselves is unsuprising. Yes, it was in the manifestos, but I cannot imagine too many people, having read the manifesto would have endorsed it on the basis of the offer or a referendum.

"It was not even controversial". It certainly became controversial when the cynical attitude of Government was put under the spotlight. It became even more controversial when legal professionals, legal academics, the Independent Referendum Commission, Independent/Affiliated TDs, Government Party members, and Civil Rights groups pointed out large difficulties within the proposed wording. The original lack of controversy was couched in the fact that the Referendums were dovetailed with the Presidential election.

"Mere Commonsense". The proposed wording was anything but commonsensical. The Government parties remain the only people to claim the wording to be sound.

Good loser wrote: »

Yes the law lobby and 15% of TDs..

Civil Rights Groups? The Independent Referendum Commission? Independent Local Representatives? Affilated Local Representatives?

Good loser wrote: »

[Didn't Nyberg recommend that something be done about lawyers dogging his enquiries - he had never seen the like in Scandanavia?.

Utterly irrelevant when you think of the results proffered by The Nyberg Report. That is just mud slinging on your part.

Good loser wrote: »

[You don't comment on the Esat/Iarnrod enquiry; that was oustanding work aborted by Abbeylara at the last minute. If only the same could have been done on Anglo.?.

In referring to the Commission of Inquiry Act 2004, I felt I covered that. This act would have provided avenues through which Abbeylara could have been considered.

Good loser wrote: »

[Personally now, like you, I don't care if the matter is never re opened..

Nice baseless assumption.

Good loser wrote: »

[Let the voters wallow in their timid and fearfilled contrariness.

A very offensive thing to say about fellow citizens. They took cognisence of the dangers of offering our Legislature powers akin to what is enjoyed by Burlisconi's Italian Parliment. They demonstrated an interest in current affairs, and a willingness not to swallow what the Government tells them to swallow. I feel this No vote demonstrates how clued in Irish people are.

Good loser

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

For the millionth time: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE LAW LOBBY.


Take that garbage to conspiracy theories where it belongs.

Hmmm let me see

Chief Justice Murray on the Courts Service web site - speaking for the judiciary.

The Law Society.

The Frontline debate - the horsemen on the panel and the hounds in the audience.

Eight attorney generals - masters of timing (as well as the law?).

FreudianSlippers

Good loser wrote: »

Hmmm let me see

Chief Justice Murray on the Courts Service web site - speaking for the judiciary.

The Law Society.

The Frontline debate - the horsemen on the panel and the hounds in the audience.

Eight attorney generals - masters of timing (as well as the law?).

Just words with no meaning.